Rejecting Transactional Relationships: A Deeper Exploration of Connection
Written on
Chapter 1: The Misconception of Transactional Relationships
In contemporary discourse, a prevalent defense against feminism among men involves the belief that sexual and interpersonal relationships are inherently transactional. Proponents argue, “Naturally, sex and relationships have always been transactional,” dismissing the notion that genuine empathy can exist between individuals. Various justifications are offered for this perspective, from invoking evolutionary psychology—looking back to our ancestral roots thousands of years ago—to claiming a social good inherent in tradition, implying that “this is the way things have always been, and nothing can change that.” This line of reasoning dismisses the complexity of human relationships, echoing the sentiments of Scottish philosopher David Hume, who asserted that “you cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’”
Understanding Hume’s distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’ is crucial in modern ethical discussions. It highlights the common fallacy of attempting to justify normative claims based on descriptive statements. Moral claims suggest how things should be, whereas simply explaining how things are falls short of addressing ethical progress. True morality acts as a corrective force against the status quo. Furthermore, moral judgments that rely solely on tradition lack genuine ethical substance; they become mere dogma rather than thoughtful considerations.
According to Hume, a robust ethical claim requires both a description of reality and a normative assertion of what ought to be. Merely stating facts without moral implications is insufficient, as is the reverse; acknowledging a reality, such as historical instances of violence, does not validate its existence. Our current understanding of morality, particularly concerning issues like rape, emphasizes that just because a behavior has existed does not justify its acceptability.
This transactional mindset often extends to friendships, where some believe that relationships are predicated on exchanges rather than mutual support and camaraderie. It’s advisable to distance oneself from individuals who hold such beliefs; their loneliness will serve as a lesson that genuine connection cannot be reduced to mere transactions.
Section 1.1: The Flaws of Evolutionary Psychology
I firmly reject the notion of transactional relationships. We are not primitive humans from 20,000 years ago; we are conscious, intelligent beings living in a technologically advanced society. Evolutionary psychology often attempts to explain human behavior based solely on historical precedents, focusing solely on what ‘is’ without addressing what ‘ought’ to be.
It is crucial to avoid deriving ethical principles from evolutionary psychology. I’ve been there myself, mistakenly believing that understanding primitive motives would clarify contemporary behavior. However, we live in a vastly different world than our ancestors did, and the past few decades alone have transformed human experience. The reductionist approach of evolutionary psychology fails to capture the complexity of human motivations.
In my personal experiences, I prioritize actions for my friends without expecting reciprocation; this defines true friendship. If you find yourself unable to approach relationships with the same selflessness, perhaps it would be better to express your expectations upfront, rather than masking them under the guise of kindness.
The first video titled "Be Consciously Transactional. Why Every Relationship is Transactional" delves into the implications of viewing relationships merely as exchanges, urging a re-evaluation of how we perceive our connections with others.
Section 1.2: The Reality of Human Nature
Human beings are inherently social creatures, and the idea that we are simply selfish organisms, as suggested by some interpretations of evolutionary theory, is misleading. The visibility of selfish behaviors can distort our understanding of the human experience. Many altruistic individuals—like the quiet parent working hard to support their children or the compassionate person donating books to those in need—often go unnoticed.
Believing that everyone acts selfishly is a misconception; it overlooks the countless acts of kindness that occur daily, often unnoticed. Kin selection and group selection theories illustrate that selflessness is ingrained in the survival strategies of social species. Those who advocate for transactional relationships often misinterpret evolutionary science, framing it inaccurately within a dog-eat-dog narrative.
Humans are not merely driven by genetic imperatives; many engage in selfless acts that defy simple genetic explanations. The actions of individuals dedicated to causes greater than themselves—like animal rights activists—demonstrate the depth of human compassion beyond what evolutionary psychology may suggest.
Ultimately, individuals who cling to transactional views might benefit from considering alternative perspectives. Their beliefs often stem from a desire to rationalize unkind behavior through flawed scientific reasoning.
The second video, "How To Deal With Rejection In Your Relationships And Why It Is Unavoidable," offers insights into understanding rejection and its impact on relationships, encouraging a more empathetic approach to human connections.